New Naim NDX

quote:

Originally posted by Plinko:
I would negate the Uniqute as a streamer into the DAC because why would one want to run the signal through two attenuators (assuming Unitqute used as pure streamer)?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Harris:

As with all the different combinations of upgrade possibilities that you have it's up to *YOU* to decide what you want to do and what you think is worthwhile given the investment just in the same way that it is completely up to you whether you want to run your 555 with two 555PSs.

I strongly suspect that most people will be very happy with an NDX as a single box solution with the *OPTIONS* of adding an XPS/555PS and/or DAC bringing similar improvements as they do on the HDX and our CD players ...

Phil

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

If you want to do it on the same quality as the WD TV does handling the network traffic and UPnP renering, it can be as easy as you think. But if you want something definitely high-end it is not that easy.

Why?

How can the concept of high-end apply to moving digital data around a network? Either it gets there or it doesn't. Doesn't matter whether the ethernet cable is gold plated supported on diamonds and anointed by the man from Mars; it's just data. A download travels half-way round the world, through cables, fibre, microwaves and satellites and makes it perfectly - nothing 'high-end' there. You are trying to argue there is something high-end about arithmetic; as though spending millions on a Kray computer will give a better answer to "2+2" than a one dollar calculator. It just won't!

And, whether it is 'easy' or not, Naim have done it in many other products in any case; they just have to take the upnp/network stuff from any of their other products which have it, and pop it inside the nDAC. Then me and I suspect quite a few others will get their credit cards out.

It just occured to me that s/pdif is very nearly an obsolete interface - at least in the context of 'high-end', whatever that is. What on earth should it be needed for?

quote:

Originally posted by Eloise:
Eloise

p.s. A quick look at the manual confirms the SPDIF output is prior to any volume / balance control and allows only internal functions (Radio, UPnP and iPod) plus digital inputs to be output to the DAC.

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:
.. there are many things to consider before the input of Ethernet switch and after the stream reaches the network interface in the high-end audio device, inches from the DAC. Putting an (embedded) operating system (eg a computer) and a network interface few inches from a DAC and the analog part and combine its power supply requirements with the digital and analog power supply requirements is not easy. Even if you do not believe this.

quote:

Originally posted by AllenB:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:
Are you joking?

It is getting a bit too much patience to read how do you think you know what Naim should have to do. Do you really think if it was that easy and would make sense businesswise Naim would not do it?

It's a bloody forum Ferenc, if you don't like it stick me on your ignore list

On a more serious note, my current Naim equipment amounts to about £45k worth if I had to replace it. Not to mention god knows how many thousands in upgrades. I do not expect personal treatment from Naim, it was my choice to buy their equipment. But I would hope that Naim are able to answer pertinent questions, as much to do with 'why not' as well as 'why'.

So please, less of the patronisation.

quote:

Originally posted by AllenB:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

If you want to do it on the same quality as the WD TV does handling the network traffic and UPnP renering, it can be as easy as you think. But if you want something definitely high-end it is not that easy.

Why?

How can the concept of high-end apply to moving digital data around a network? Either it gets there or it doesn't. Doesn't matter whether the ethernet cable is gold plated supported on diamonds and anointed by the man from Mars; it's just data. A download travels half-way round the world, through cables, fibre, microwaves and satellites and makes it perfectly - nothing 'high-end' there. You are trying to argue there is something high-end about arithmetic; as though spending millions on a Kray computer will give a better answer to "2+2" than a one dollar calculator. It just won't!

And, whether it is 'easy' or not, Naim have done it in many other products in any case; they just have to take the upnp/network stuff from any of their other products which have it, and pop it inside the nDAC. Then me and I suspect quite a few others will get their credit cards out.

It just occured to me that s/pdif is very nearly an obsolete interface - at least in the context of 'high-end', whatever that is. What on earth should it be needed for?

I am sorry, but you do not see the forest through the woods.

If it would be that easy how a well known digital streamer manufacturer can TRIPLE the price of their expensive high-end streamer/dac by just adding a heavier, more isolated chassis and a Lundahl line output transformer plus some optimization here and there using the same network path and decoding? The IP-based transmission is only a part of the story, not automatically leads to the audio nirvana, there are many things to consider before the input of Ethernet switch and after the stream reaches the network interface in the high-end audio device, inches from the DAC. Putting an (embedded) operating system (eg a computer) and a network interface few inches from a DAC and the analog part and combine its power supply requirements with the digital and analog power supply requirements is not easy. Even if you do not believe this.

Now you come on ferenc
Ever heard of a 'quiet room'? Naim have the technology and experience. Might have pushed build cost too far in the case of the NDX. but definitely possible, the cd555 is testament to that.

You're a very knowledgeable guy, but don't treat people around here like fools

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

Do you really think if it was that easy and would make sense businesswise Naim would not do it?

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:
.. there are many things to consider before the input of Ethernet switch and after the stream reaches the network interface in the high-end audio device, inches from the DAC. Putting an (embedded) operating system (eg a computer) and a network interface few inches from a DAC and the analog part and combine its power supply requirements with the digital and analog power supply requirements is not easy. Even if you do not believe this.

There is nothing to consider before the ethernet socket apart from the network itself.

There already are two powerful processors inside the DAC, running software that does the buffering, the clock selection and everything else, so adding a bit more software or even a third processor can hardly be a big deal. I suspect you could drop the Apple interface and USB stuff without upsetting many. Power supply requirements must already have been addressed since there is plenty of digital stuff going on inside the DAC - check the white paper. An ethernet network interface is about a postage stamps worth of pcb real-estate, so that can't be a big deal either. There's already a USB interface a few inches from the DAC, so why should an ethernet interface present insurmountable problems? And, by the way, an embedded operating system isn't a computer! Like, one is software, the other is hardware!

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

Do you really think if it was that easy and would make sense businesswise Naim would not do it?

It may well be easy technically; business-wise it might not be, especially if it upsets the status quo. Still, when a paradigms gotta shift, shift it will. And Paul has already hinted that there will be a one (or two ..) box competitor to the DS, so those of us that wish such a thing just have to wait. But please, while we wait, don't propose the NDX as a convincing way of connecting an nDAC to a network. It just doesn't wash.

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:
ferenc, i am completely lost. Do you really think there would need to be a upnp server inside the DAC?

quote:

A quick look at the manual confirms the SPDIF output is prior to any volume / balance control and allows only internal functions (Radio, UPnP and iPod) plus digital inputs to be output to the DAC.

quote:

You can make it two box adding an XPS2 or an 555 PS which can not be done doesn't need to be done by the competition as its built in already and if you want you can make it 3 or 4 box as well.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

quote:

I do understand why some are disappointed that Naim has not built the perfect companion piece for the Naim DAC.

What am i missing? How is the UniServe not the perfect DAC partner?

How is this not the Streamer everyone wants?

-Patrick

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff P:

quote:

You can make it two box adding an XPS2 or an 555 PS which can not be done doesn't need to be done by the competition as its built in already and if you want you can make it 3 or 4 box as well.

...why does everybody assume the competition needs a power supply upgrade. Do you all think Naim the only company manufacturing HiFi that knows what it is doing?

quote:

Originally posted by AllenB:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

Do you really think if it was that easy and would make sense businesswise Naim would not do it?

It may well be easy technically; business-wise it might not be, especially if it upsets the status quo. Still, when a paradigms gotta shift, shift it will. And Paul has already hinted that there will be a one (or two ..) box competitor to the DS, so those of us that wish such a thing just have to wait. But please, while we wait, don't propose the NDX as a convincing way of connecting an nDAC to a network. It just doesn't wash.

As I see, the NDX is exactly a one box competitor of the DS line. Am I missing something? You can make it two box adding an XPS2 or an 555 PS which can not be done by the competition and if you want you can make it 3 or 4 box as well.

You have never heard the NDX but want Naim to make it somehow better... without hearing it. Why not wait until your opinion/suggestion can be based on some listening?

Not many have heard but Naim have stated that it can be UPGRADED by using the nDAC.
The clue is in the reading

quote:

Originally posted by AllenB:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

quote:

Originally posted by AllenB:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:
Are you joking?

It is getting a bit too much patience to read how do you think you know what Naim should have to do. Do you really think if it was that easy and would make sense businesswise Naim would not do it?

It's a bloody forum Ferenc, if you don't like it stick me on your ignore list

On a more serious note, my current Naim equipment amounts to about £45k worth if I had to replace it. Not to mention god knows how many thousands in upgrades. I do not expect personal treatment from Naim, it was my choice to buy their equipment. But I would hope that Naim are able to answer pertinent questions, as much to do with 'why not' as well as 'why'.

So please, less of the patronisation.

Not patronisation, but realisation. You oversimplify (?) the difficulties of building network - based high-end audio products.

There are technical, strategic questions which probably never will be answered by Naim. Quite understable, as much as I understood why they did not want to talk about roadmaps few weeks ago. You can force them to answer, what they do not want to let you know. But you forgot to answer my question:

Do you really think if it was that easy and would make sense businesswise Naim would not do it?

I am on holiday doing holiday things, so not always easy to answer, but I will get round to answering this properly.

In the meantime, I would suggest that, firstly, you over complicate things, and secondly, you do not work for Naim so how would you know how easy / hard things are to do for Naim.

Like I said, they have the technology and know-how. The argument has always been about how this NDX fits with current nDAC owners for me. The answer for me is still not neatly, not viably but I have accepted what I think is the main reason for the NDX, and that is to go head-to-head with the ADS.

quote:

"... the theory of EMI is well known but the practice is something else entirely. There are so many factors that can effect EMI that dealing with EMI can be akin to black magic....Proper signal termination, signal loading, de-coupling, etc. can all have a dramatic effect on EMI....must make good electrical contact with the chassis. It's common for paint or other "debris" to cause electrical isolation, increasing EMI. During testing, you can try to use copper tape to make and seal this connection. A bad connection here can increase radiated emissions by 6db or more!
If possible, don't use a ribbon cable to connect the module to the host system. A direct connection will work much better, both from a signal-quality point of view as well as an EMI point of view.
When doing EMI testing, try a wide range of Ethernet switches. Experience has shown that different switches can have as much as a 12db difference in common mode emissions. So try different switches until a "good one" is found.
Your choice of power supply can also effect EMI and common mode emissions. Choose a good one!...

... While the modules are relatively low-power devices, heat dissipation can not be ignored. If the system will be in a sealed case with no ventilation and/or your host board is dissipating some heat then it is necessary to plan for system cooling. Thermal analysis of a complete system is complex and difficult.

Like EMI, the theory behind it is well understood and documented but the practical application of it is more of an art than a science. "

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:
No, of course, sorry if I ws not clear enough. I am talking about the complete chain, the part before the Ethernet switch is the UPnP server, the chain is (seriously simplified):

ripping/downloading/file transfering -- storing ------- then the playing request arrives------------- UPnP server finds data -- decoding different formts/compression on the server side and sending raw PCM stream -- IP packetizing -- Ethernet switch / router --- network interface on the player side -- buffering -- clocking -- filtering -- D/A conversion -- analog output.

Decoding on server side not always requested, but quite often happens. It is critical regarding bit perfectness.

quote:

Originally posted by AllenB:
you do not work for Naim so how would you know how easy / hard things are to do for Naim.

quote:

Originally posted by JonR:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:
No, of course, sorry if I ws not clear enough. I am talking about the complete chain, the part before the Ethernet switch is the UPnP server, the chain is (seriously simplified):

ripping/downloading/file transfering -- storing ------- then the playing request arrives------------- UPnP server finds data -- decoding different formts/compression on the server side and sending raw PCM stream -- IP packetizing -- Ethernet switch / router --- network interface on the player side -- buffering -- clocking -- filtering -- D/A conversion -- analog output.

Decoding on server side not always requested, but quite often happens. It is critical regarding bit perfectness.

Bloody hell - that's the simplified version?? What's the complex version then? (If you have the time...)

quote:

Geoff,
actually there was a 700 Euro switching mode power supply upgrade, to change the existing ps board. So it seems they felt, it could make better changing parts of the smps making it better. Other parts of the unit were not changed, so it is not about more power needed, but about something else. Food for thought.

quote:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.